Talk:Sony/Archive 1

Disputed neutrality?
-This article has too much emphasis on Sony's controversies (Lik Sang? why is that on the main Sony page for god's sake?). Propose moving the controversies to a seperate article AND flagging the article as disputed neutrality for putting too much emphasis on controversies in the mean time.

I think the page was ruined
I think some troll haxxored the page probably the GNAA

Financial woes
I wonder why there is no mention of their recent financial woes? --CharlesC 10:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Columbia
I notice that Columbia Pictures is a redirect to this page; Columbia had a long and interesting history before Sony bought them in 1989, and it really should have its own article. I'll go ahead and start on it, though I don't have much time at the moment. -lee 16:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From Talk:Sony
background on the sony brand: 

from :

In 1958, Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo, which was gaining recognition for its Sony brand goods, changed its name to Sony Corporation. The name "Sony" is easy to pronounce and read in any language.

from :

Following registration of the Sony trademark and the company's rebirth as Sony Corporation, plans to internationalize, diversify operations, and widen brand recognition were successfully implemented

This shows that the Sony brand it trademarked, and existed prior to "Sony Corporation". It was a brand of the "Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo"

Christopher Mahan 18:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note the TTK continued to be used as a brand name for electronic components, including valves/tubes.

Page move discussion
(from Requested moves)

Sony Corporation → Sony

 * im beautiful This will move the page back to where it was for at least 3+ years until yesterday, which I think counts as consensus. It was moved by one user wanting to reflect an obscure quirk of Japanese corporate law in a completely not-useful way. The two pages listed on the new Sony page are subsidiaries of Sony Corp, so could equally well still be linked after the move. -- Dtcdthingy 11:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Rd232 14:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am the user in question. Sony is a brand, a marque, trademark even. The name of the corporation is "Sony Corporation". You don't call the "Disney" company "Disney" because everybody calls it that. You call it The Walt Disney Company because that's its name. Christopher Mahan 18:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC).
 * Which would make sense if the page was only about the Corp, but it's not, it's equally about the brand and the product and the subsidiaries and lots of things in between. Move it to a general Sony page, branch off sub-pages if necessary -- Dtcdthingy 20:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sony should be a redirect to Sony Corporation. violet/riga (t) 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Sony's subsidaries and other external links can be referenced at the bottom of the Sony page, there is nothing ambiguous, it's all one big family. --Gunter 20:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. An utterly unnecessary disambiguation.  The Walt Disney Company should also be moved to Disney. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. The article's scope is not limited to the corporation.  ADH (t&m) 17:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. and move that other article to Disney while you're at it, like Tony Sidaway suggested. SECProto 03:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article titles should be formal and specific, so I'm with violet/riga here.  For example, in the sentence "Disney was responsible for creating the movie Fantasia", the company or the person could equally be the subject and it would be disconcerting to be told that "Disney" exclusively meant the company. The way to deal with this is with a redirect so people realize that they need to look for a bio-page when they get redirected to the clearly labeled company article.  BanyanTree 00:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is primarily about the Sony Corporation, with some added material about the Sony brand (which can be moved back to Sony). For a good model for how I think the Sony article should be, I recommend the article Toyota. CO GDEN  02:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, could we merge Toyota Group and Toyota at Toyota? Another utterly pointless duplication. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, Sony is a universal brand. --Mateusc 18:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page move
For what it's worth, article titles are not supposed to be formal, so that two votes above are simply contrary to the Manual of Style. See Naming conventions (common names). As an example of this practice, see Nintendo. If I had realized this page was up for moving, I would have supported it, however it appears I missed it. As is, six supported while four opposed, but as I mentioned above, two of those votes were contrary to the Manual of Style, leaving us with six supports and two opposes. The answer seems obvious to me, but I'll leave this sit for a while. - Vague | Rant 08:47, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed, I've now moved the article. - Vague | Rant 05:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't get this:
"Until late 2004, Sony's various digital portable music players did not support even the de facto standard MP3 natively, although the software provided with them would convert MP3 files into the ATRAC formats."

I've seen other articles on the internet about this too, but it doesn't appear to be true.

Look at these:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/026-0806288-3435660

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00008W7LI/qid=1110469622/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8__i1_xgl23/102-6766395-9483344?v=glance&s=electronics&n=507846

The D-NE511 and D-NE510 (seems to be US variant) Atrac CD Walkmans, both available from Amazon since March 2003. I have a 511 which I bought in August '03, and I can assure you it can play any old normal MP3 just stuck onto a plain old ISO9660 format CD-R/RW.

CD Walkmans are also "digital portable music players", are they not? I don't see what's not digital or portable about them...


 * Indeed. I've fixed it to say Network Walkmans, since they are the product line meant. --Dtcdthingy 05:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slogan
Is it still "Like No Other"? I haven't heard that one before. The slogan used for the last few years, at least here in Australia, has been "It's a Sony" It's said in an American accent, and the ads are filmed in America, so I can only assume it's the American slogan as well. I am hesitant to edit without others agreeing, however.


 * The slogan varies of division for division and time. "Sony Style" was the big part of the group in last years. Currently doesn't have a defined slogan, only the remote concept of "Sony World" - "life style"


 * Right now the oficial slogan for SOA (Sony of America) is "Sony: Like No Other" according to different advertisements both in U.S.A. and in Latin America. Also continous mentions to "Sony Style" as a "door" to the "Sony Experience" .Sony is trying to develop a unified, global customer experience, it appears. But as always Sony is "sligthly" disorganized and a lot of faults occurr... Anyway, If a "Slogan" section in the article is created, it should mention the most used occurrences (The ones mentioned above). Your thoughts? --Ziggrrauglurr 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First section
The whole thing about terrible consoles and failing horribly. I'm no sony fanboy, but I think someone who likes the xBox 360 a little too much edited it. I don't know how to fix it.

70.18.123.37Joe

Rootkit debate
I don't want to open a can of worms here, but technically this wasn't a rootkit, was it? It was nasty and used techniques to hide the software which rootkits use, but I don't think it was really a rootkit. And there's no need to mention it twice, both in "Digital Rights Management" and "Legal". 193.134.254.145 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

By any textbook definition it *was* a rootkit, albeit a very limited one. What it apparently lacked was a provision to allow backdoor access. However the full implications of this code have never been fully documented. It is known that it included spyware elements. I think it deserves important mention because at the time (and still presently) it broke laws in several European countries, that is to say - I emphasise - it was a *criminal act*, notably in the UK where it directly and unambiguously is illegal under the Computer Misuse Act. I believe this fact is being actively swept under the carpet and its ommission is wrong. Imho it deserves more prominant and thorough treatment since it has historical significance in being the first example of a major corporation commiting a "cybercrime".

Too much criticism?
Why is Sony's legal action against Lik Sang on this article?? This is an encyclopedia... keep it relevant. look at Microsoft for example, a short summary of criticisms would be good, with links to a more detailed article. Stuff like paid reviewers, etc. does not need to be there. Immersion thing is more of a PS/SCEA thing...

Sony vs. Sony
I've snippets of a story online about one division of Sony suing another at one point. Does anyone have this full story? --ZachPruckowski 00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bravia in the UK
I would like to start a page for Braivia users in the UK. It would have details of the Freeview software updates and more detailed explanations of the tv functions --86.141.167.210 18:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sony documental
Hi, has anybody seen a documental that tells the story of how seven japanese came to the USA and Germany, trying to open the market to the Sony radio? It was a very nice documental, lots of information, very very entertaining, it was in japanese, I saw it with spanish subtitles.

At the end appears Akio Morita (I think), who is sitting next to the host, then the host hands him the first radio, a red one, and he says: "I've forgotten that it was so heavy" with a surprised face :) :P

Any ideas of the name?

thanks.

Acrilico 01:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By "documental" I'm assuming you mean "documentary"? I'm not familiar with that documentary, though I'd be interested in seeing it. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 01:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Nihonjoe, I found it! Well, actually a friend of my mother has it, it's in VHS, and they asked me to pass it to a CD, so I'll keep you informed about it, bye! --Acrilico 23:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great. (^_^) I'll be interested to learn more about it. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

School project
YA I'M LOOKING FOR THE THE INVENTER OF SONY ANYONE HERD OF HIM BECUSE I'M DOING THIS FOR A PROGECET AT SCHOOLE MY ENGLISH SUCKS SO I HOPE YOU CAN HELP ME THANKS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.174.135.52 (talk • contribs).


 * Sony is a company, so no one "invented" it, per se. Did you read the article? It talks about the founders of the company. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  23:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * S*ny came out of a monkey's backside and has been thrown at the world with an indignant shriek ever since. There is your story of invention right there. SotiCoto 11:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I see this page has had a lot of vandalism recently. Is that common on this page or is it just because of Sony's recent media prominence (with the new playstation announcements)? If it is just a recent and temporary thing, could we have one of those "no edits unless you're logged in" locks on the page? TastyCakes 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay what the heck
Sony was known for starting a SLEW of prodcucts that came out in the 80s, and that people are STILL copying today. Well Why are we just sweeping this under the rug? -Dragong4

Memory Stick
There are a couple of Samsung devices that I found that use MS as a storage format, so it's not the case that "no other manufacturers" use it. See and

salam from pakistan , import with care (clearing

DVD+R(W)
Didn't Sony help develop the "plus" writable DVD formats? It's part of the DVD+RW Alliance, but that and the "plus" formats aren't mentioned here. --Evice 18:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Soh-nee?
Where is this "soh-nee means business is bad" thing taken from? Sō ne (そうね）means "that's right" or "indeed"; sōni (僧尼) is "monks and nuns", but would probably not be understood unless written. Jpatokal 11:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I took that line about Sonny-boys from Akio Morita's book "Made in Japan"

^ That response doesn't address "soh-nee" being attributed in the article to mean that "business is bad." That phrase in Japanese is a gentle (i.e. more likely feminine), and direct (familiar, intimate) way of indicating agreement with the addressee to something understood from context (e.g. what was just said). It is much too common of a phrase (for obvious reasons) to ever be interpreted with such a narrow and ultra-specific connotation such as "business is bad." Bkcone 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it isn't to be taken in the translative wording sense, but rather because S*ny are in fact so purely evil that everything they touch becomes corrupt? That definitely seems like "business is bad" to me. SotiCoto 11:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * With the spelling "Sonny", with double n, some Japanese would pronounce the word ソンニー (sonnii), which sounds similar to 損に (son-ni), meaning damage or loss. Thus, they changed the spelling with single n, Sony, which will be pronounced nothing but ソニー (sonii).  Those 2 Japanese websites confirm this, but I'm too lazy to search English citation. Kzaral 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Format problems?
The entire Sony page seems to have been messed up. It's got the same basic page copied around 10 times and numerous other problems. Any reasoning for this? Robert, 67.126.87.205 04:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * yes i noticed that too. i tried my best to fix it up and get rid of duplicated parts.  hope i managed to do a good job. Integrity168 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bleem!
Hey mabye we should add the bleem cases of 2000 where Sony sued the emulator company which made a Psone emulator for the Dreamcast. For those who don't know its similar to the Lik Sang thing that happened, I think it should be added. --Elven6 02:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't Bleem! also make other emulator programs too? I don't remember but I think its a good idea if you wanna add something about Bleem! I don't know enough about what happened myself... Integrity168 04:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, shouldn't the Sony page include something about the various proposed boycotts against the company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.246.164 (talk • contribs)

It seem to me as though there should be one and only one capitalization/punctuation of bleem!. As it is, the company has "bleem!", "bleem", and "Bleem" as its names. Someone who knows more about this than me should change it so all of the times the company is mentioned by name it should be the same. Thanks, -- Gphoto talk 01:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to an archive of bleem!s original website. If you click the red Contact button at the bottom of the page, you'll see that in their offical Company Mail Address, they use "bleem! inc." Based on this, I recommend "bleem!" be used for all references to the company, with the lower case "b", and the exclamation point. Using "bleem! inc." is probably excessive, in the same way that saying "Sony Corp." instead of just Sony is excessive. (I'll make the bleem! change myself when my account is old enough to have edit privileges.) Froboz 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Froboz

Hey someone removed the article, why? --Elven6 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Article for criticisms on Sony
I think that the size of the criticism section warrants a split. Comments? Additionally, wasn't there a CD thing that installed software onto peoples' computers? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just today, a new controversy has come up regarding a viral marketing site called www.alliwantforxmasisapsp.com with compelling evidence that it was created and run by the marketing firm Zipatoni and funded by Sony. When the dust settles, this incedent will surely be added to this section.

From an organizational perspective, a split would seem reasonable. However, being as neutral as I can on the topic, I think a company that has incurred this many marketing blunders probably warrants keeping the controversies in with the main article. Moving the controversies to their own article can easily be interpretted as sweeping them under the rug, so that an extra click is required to view them.

The Walmart article is a good guide. There are many criticisms for Walmart, but the editors felt compelled to keep them in the same article. I recommend the criticisms stay in the Sony article as well. Froboz 07:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Froboz


 * On the contrary, having a separate page for the crimes of S*ny demonstrates how important it is to draw attention to them. To leave them in the main page itself typically means they will be toned down, which will fail to properly demonstrate just how despicably evil they are. SotiCoto 11:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * These are both good points. I believe that a brief review of the company's basic errors in judgement are essential to the article. A separate article covering their mistakes and learned opinions about their apparent character would be welcome to me.  Needing to dig into a different thread to bring up such points may let the casual reader miss these.

I for one agree that there are some fundamentally serious problems about Sony's attitude towards consumers. This makes them a major standout among most current large corporations. And a discussion including "only verifiable facts" may leave out a lot of dots that most readers can connect themselves. FredH69 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Though sales of UMD movies were mediocre, sales of UMD games sky rocketed."
Do you think that should be removed? UMD games sky rocketed? They are the only games available for the PSP.

history of SONY
there should be some mention of masaru ibuka and Akio morita the founders of sony in a bombed out basement in 1946 - check superbrands uk Alkags 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) kags
 * I added a "History" section to entice other people to add to it, as well as including some links to Sony's website where there's lots more information. Tocharianne 16:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

easy enough to find citation on sony psp graffiti (re: citition needed)
a) Molly Smith was manager of SCEA PR since PS1 or so, 10+ years, you can verify with google.

b) top hit for sony graffiti PSP on google is this article:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,69741,00.html

Quotes from article Other cities targeted in the campaign include New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Miami, according to Sony spokeswoman Molly Smith.

When asked about the criticism, Smith countered that art is subjective and that both the content and the medium dovetailed with Sony's belief that the PSP is a "disrupter product" that lets people play games, surf the internet and watch movies wherever they want.

[emphasis added]

Since I'm not registered I'll let someone who has the access to the page edit it. You can find additional citations quite easily with google, and if you include Molly Smith as keywords you can see official sony PR comments/statements on it.

10:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Cryptonymius 19:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sony was involved in ESP research
Should it be in here?(the current parascope site was down for me ) http://web.archive.org/web/20060224000303/http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/sonyESP.htm

Add missing info to Lik-Sang and Grey Goods Importation
KremlinGB 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Please add the following text (copied from the Lik Sang main article) after "Lik-Sang and Grey Goods Importation". In other words, look for the text "Sony responded in a statement[45] saying that Lik-Sang had not contested the case, thus incurring no legal fees, and had not paid any damages or costs to Sony." and then add the following text:

However, Lik Sang replied once more that their legal representatives spent over a year to contest the UK's court jurisdiction and tried to defend against Sony's allegations of parallel importation and copyright infringement, and that Sony launched duplicate actions in different countries. According to Lik Sang's final statements, two different judges expressed their surprise about the high legal expenses claimed by Sony.
 * Not done. That is neither neutral nor a reliable sourced for something as serious as legal issues.  Proto   ►  20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversies are relevant, but should not dominate the article
I noticed that a big part of the article (more than 1/3) deals with controversies Sony caused in the last few years. This section is too big and seems to be POV. I suggest cuttng it down and I will attempt to do so now. Corrections welcome. -- Repetition 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's a good idea. Of course, another way to change the balance is to expand the other parts of the article. GlassFET 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page is vandalized someone revert it.-I am a shadow 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Goat Beheading
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=451414&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 This should definitely be included somewhere.
 * Done. Now, I'm gonna go take a puke. -Skorpus McGee 15:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That article is fake that site anualy makes joke newsletters like that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.24.4 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
 * ecapitated%20goat/article.do - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This story WAS on the front of the Mail on Sunday on 29 April 2007. Fact. Mark83 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its fake look at this article it explains it all http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/30/sony-explains-god-of-wars-dead-goat-antics/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.24.4 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * NSFW. Fake, huh? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They could have photoshoped or it could had been a fake prop but it never happend and the article is fake I already put up a link explaining this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.24.4 (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Did you even examine your evidence? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So they diddn't use offal, the goat wasn't killed in front of everyone, and the reporter is discredited. The fact remains there was a dead goat there, and it was used to sell GoW2. -Skorpus McGee 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day we all eat meat and thousands of animals are slaughtered every day this story has been extremely exaggerated.
 * They displayed a nearly beheaded goat to advertise a game, and people reacted. Sony apologized. No matter how much it's being "exaggerated", it's controversial. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The arguments put forward by out unnamed noob who's using a 76.185.* IP address is totally moot. It's not a 'fake article', it's legitimate. The article states that an animal was presented as a 'sacrifice' to the God of War as a marketting gimick. It's quite obvious the animal is real, and it has been slaughtered by having it's neck very roughly cut open to produce so much extensive tissue damage for the censoring pixelation to be that large.

Our IP'd friends last comment that "We all eat meat and thousands of animals are slaughtered every day." is also moot given the fact that in civilised countries the method of killing is an electric stun to the central nervous system followed by a bolt gun to the brain bringing about near instant death consistantly, as opposed to a gruesome horrific slow death of an animal having it's throat cut.

Perhaps he's watched too many martial arts movies where he's come to the conclusion that if you get your throat cut you pass out immediately, or perhaps he just needs a better education in the dynamics of living creatures or what amounts to cruelty. Whilst cruelty is endorsed and if not encouraged in Judaism and Islam as part of their ritualistic slaughter of animals in the same way our primate ancestors killed them because some fictional deity in the sky has told them that being savages makes the meat pure and blessed by afforementioned deity, to us civil human beings this advert and publicity stunt is inherently offensive.

I believe it should thoroughly be expounded into the article. If Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a balcony makes front page news, people mauling the throat of some poor animal to sell a product should be also, but we're desensitised and anything that might impact on the multi-billion dollar meat empire is whitewashed. List it in the article already and ignore our one protesting IP'd noob. Jachin 00:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Reason for Failure of the SACD
This is generally a really good article.

However, I do not agree that "CDs are preferred by consumers because of their ubiquitous presence in consumer devices." By this logic, CDs should never have taken off, because at the time of introduction of CDs, the phonograph record was "ubiquitously present".

Instead, the SACD (and Sony) failed to clearly show that it was superior to the existing format. CDs sound pretty good to most people including me. The SACD is(was) better sounding, but one essential goof was evidence to me that Sony made a fundamental error:

Sony (and Columbia) released a series of its older recordings on SACD, presumably to take advantage of the newer medium. However, most of these older recordings were made before the availability of the SACD format. Hence, they must have been recorded on another medium first.

How could you have the advantage of a better recording medium if it has been recorded in something else first? A similar analogy is that the cassette tape was a better medium than 8-track tape. If you however record onto an 8-track and then onto the cassette, you will have lost the fidelity of the original signal.

Indeed, I had purchased 12 SACDs from Columbia only to eventually be completely underwhelmed with its supposed benefits. I became a moderate fan again after hearing SACDs made by small companies that put their recordings directly into the SACD format.

In addition, the SACD had to compete nearly simultaneously with DVD-audio. That also subtracted from many sales from SACD. 67.119.195.175 20:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This may or may not have been true in the case of some recordings. The content of many CDs is digitally recorded onto digital tape recorders that have a superior performance to the CD (precisely to allow for future developments).  These recordings should sound superior on the SACD (or indeed DVD-A).


 * What is not appreciated by many people is that the vast majority of CD recordings are still made on analogue tape. This is particularly true in the non clasical world.  The average CD listener is probably unaware that the record company does not pay for te actual recording of the master tapes.  The cost of this has to be borne by the band doing the recording.  As analogue masters are significantly cheaper than digital, this is all they are prepared to pay for.  Most bands attempt to justify this by claiming that analogue 'sounds better', a notion that clearly isn't true otherwise the record companies would adopt analogue mastering for their prestige releases.


 * Many SACD (and indeed DVD-A) releases have come from these analogue master tapes, and it is little surprising that the quality is underwhealming. If you can find a SACD or DVD-A recording that has been produced from digital masters (even if the recording was released on CD), the difference is instantly noticeable.  Even my partner (who does not generally notice the quality of a recording, just the noise it makes) noticed that I was playing something significantly different, the day I slipped a DVD-A into the player (even though it was a 2 channel down-convert from the 5.1 channel disk).  This recording was originally released about 3 years ago on CD.


 * Two things killed SACD. Firstly, and less significantly, that it was competing with another format, DVD-A.  Everyone still remembers the Betamax/VHS war.  But secondly, and most importantly, most of the non classical releases (and this is the lions share of the market), were produced from inferior analogue master tapes and couldn't sound better if they wanted to.


 * 20.133.0.14 07:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ATRAC and MP3
The article refers to ATRAC as a compression system. This is not actually true. It is a data reduction technique. The resultant ATRAC data is still a recogniseable PCM coded data stream and can be decoded as such. It is however missing some of the detail that is considered inaudible. For transfer to Network Walkman type players it is further placed inside a Digital Rights Management 'wrapper' so that the data stream cannot be recovered.

Similarly, MP3 data streams are not converted to ATRAC as the article claims. They too are placed inside a DRM wrapper so that the MP3 cannot be extracted, but they remain as MP3 encoded audio as the Walkman display data format display will confirm.

20.133.0.14 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

SONY Digital cameras
I didn't see in the artical anything about sony cameras althought it is the first corperation wich made CCD lens in cameras